User talk:NeilN/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

N I H I L I S T I C soap-boxing

Just FYI, I posted this to his talk page. At some point in the near future, we'll probably have to pull the plug on his talk page access. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: Thanks. It doesn't help that we have an editor, already under community-mandated mentorship, encouraging this. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the G5 section and revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Neil, what is this community-mandated mentorship about (I assume you mean Endercase)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: See the mess at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Endercase --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Mess is an understatement. I vaguely recall looking at that thread a bit at the time, getting dizzy, and then not looking again. Even now, I couldn't really read it completely. I lost interest at some point in the endless (pun intended) back-and-forth. Is David Tornheim his mentor (the closure wasn't clear)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes he is. As far as I'm concerned, this editor is a giant time suck who should be restricted to editing content. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems clear, but unless he is blocked as NOTHERE, I don't think that's going to happen. He has about 1,200 edits, of which only about 160 are to main space. Is David doing much?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I think he's trying but every situation results in wikilawyering. See the block I just put on. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks(?) for the ping, but, I'm fresh out of ... umm... never mind. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Pentecostal Mission

The page on itself is not official but managed by believers. But those who have left the Church are trying to intentionally defame impersonating as the page looks official. this is very insulting to see untrue and false things about a Church organisation. Previously it had many other sections:

"MAGAZINE MINISTRY Magazines in several languages are printed and distributed to subscribers. The English magazine published from India is called The Voice of Pentecost. Pilgrim's Journal is published and printed in USA. Other English magazines are: "Pentecostal Messenger" from Malaysia, "The Youth Herald" from Singapore, "Power Divine" from Sri Lanka and "Trumpet of the Lord" from the UK. Malayalam magazine PENTECOST is one of the oldest Pentecostal magazines from Kerala. Hindi edition PENTECOST KI WANI published from New Delhi, "PENTECOSTI-CHI VAANI" from Mumbai and "PENTECOST DA SNEHA" from Dhariwal (Punjab) are also other landmark in the history of Church to spread the Gospel to northern part of India. Church Magazines are Being published in more than 40 Indian languages and many other foreign languages. NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY In 2002 the church opened its New Testament Christian Academy in Sierra Leone. The children from the Congo Cross ( a place in Freetown where the first branch was opened in Africa ) and Wilberforce assemblies of this church attend the school. MISSIONS EDUCATION FUND (MEF) Missions Education Fund (MEF) was found in May 2007. MEF is 100% Christian charitable organisation that helps children from economic, social and physical poverty to receive education and enable then to become responsible, mature Christian adults. This is to Give a child hope for the future — and help break the cycle of poverty. This education sponsorship program is created, fully administered and managed by volunteers of the Grace New Covenant Pentecostal Church, Canada incorporate with New Testament church, USA. Today, Missions Education Fund has helped over 1000 students in 19 countries including Sierra Leone, Togo, Congo, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Mexico, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Papua New Guinea. Contribution towards this helps for the basic education needs of a child who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to attend school. These needs include but not limited to: Tuition, uniform, transportation and school supplies costs but most importantly, sponsored child will be encouraged to develop a lifelong relationship with God. TRACT MINISTRY Tracts of different kinds and various life issues (topics such as peace, salvation; questions about life and healings) are also published in different languages. PUBLICATIONS Many books are published in many languages by the church. The doctrines told on the books are of depth and helps believers to prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ. The books tells in detail about Salvation, Water Baptism, Divine healing, Life of Separation etc.,- Voice of Pentecost."


But it was removed by the impersonator, you had no problem with that. The use of this website is to provide true and accurate information, not false. I hope that the page be removed completely or encrypt after restoration of the page as it was before (before the deletion of true and good deeds and addition of the false assumption that us very inappropriate on a page about a Divine Church). Else this will be cause affecting the trust on this website. Else pleas consider getting official documents from the organisation before allowing anybody to publish such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel7sg (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nathaniel7sg. We are an encyclopedia, not an extension of the organization's website. We summarize what all reliable sources have to say on the subject, not just Church-approved ones. If you think a source isn't reliable please bring that up at Talk:The Pentecostal Mission but be aware that "this source isn't reliable because it is against the Church" isn't going to get very far. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RFPP and the IP sock

Neil, I noticed that IP being a bit rude towards you, and good on you for blocking the right old pain. But you might want to do the same for Special:Contributions/115.132.162.117 as they undid your revert pretty swiftly. I think there is IP-ping-pong going on here. Wes Wolf Talk 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That IP is starting to be a pain in the arse now. Does this qualify for RevDel? Wes Wolf Talk 01:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Neil. This Nate Speed is starting to become Speedy Gonzalez with the number of IP jumps he has made; and a wide variety of them too. Someone needs to strap a rocket to him and ignite the blighter haha. Wes Wolf Talk 01:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, Neil, I semi'ed your page. Feel free to unprotect if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MelanieN. --NeilN talk to me 02:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Any chance of doing my talk page, @MelanieN:? I have a sneaky suspicion these IP's will target my talk page next out of frustration. Wes Wolf Talk 02:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Better yet, I'm going to go see if I can get someone to do a rangeblock. Holler if your page gets attacked next, Neil or I can take care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Wolf: I'm going to step away in a few minutes but I do have your talk page on my watchlist. --NeilN talk to me 02:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Presumably I'm next. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: is a range block even possible with this rogue one? The diversity of IP addresses is very wide. 89's, 103's, 115's, 2202's, and how many more there are. He must have some IP generator that is plucking these at random. @NeilN: thank you for the extra set of eyes on my page. Wes Wolf Talk 02:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

All the recent ones have been 82.s, that would be a place to start. I asked Bbb23, if he's not around we could ask someone else. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: It was a 185.s that attacked me, but with their style of writing it was clearly a Nate Quack-Fast (sorry I couldn't resist on that pun). Wes Wolf Talk 02:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Almost nobody seems to be online right now. I asked a second person, we'll see. This may be too great a flight of ducks to shoot down. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I just picked of two flocks as a commercial proxy/anon-webbrowsing service. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedian with catch.
Bravo, good hunting! --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN and DMacks: I have tears streaming down my eyes and my cheeks are aching with laughing so much at the duck puns. Who would have thought one vile IP would provide so much laughter out of all of this. Seeing as we are shooting ducks down, shall I prepare the veg to go with the duck meal? Wes Wolf Talk 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
And maybe a little rice? And a nice rosé? Actually I'm going to waddle off to bed now. Hope I don't miss any more excitement. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You mis-spelled "excrement". Better for you to have stepped out than stepping in it. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@DMacks: Wow - a sharp shooter AND the best pun of the evening! Very well done! --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Wesley Wolf MelanieN This discussion and all the duck puns are fairly funny, well done people! As for the IP hopping sock vandal, I hope they don't try and steal any of mine - might explain where they have been disappearing to! lol In all seriousness though, good job in shooting down some of the flocks and best of luck in the future with them! I hope you don't mind me butting in here momentarily, just had to congratulate you on the puns, make a couple of my own, and congratulate you on a job well done/good work. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible username policy violation

Could a username like Kocfans be construed/interpreted as a possible attempt to get around the username policies in regards to point one (first bullet) under the "Disruptive or offensive usernames" section (here)? It does read a lot like the "containing profanities" bit, especially when read aloud. Thanks as always for your input. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I would wait and see how they edit. See, for example, this. --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. That was the other possibility. Just saw the username and thought I better double check, hope you didn't mind. I will watch their edits for a bit and see. If they edit vandalously, would that then be grounds for an AIV report based on username or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Probably. That (for rapid vandalism) or WP:UAA otherwise. --NeilN talk to me 05:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
UAA is what I had intended to put instead of AIV (oops). Thanks for the confirmation. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

looking for an online admin

I'm getting tired of reverting the N word from User:Aaaaassiajsij. Meters (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done NeilN blocked them just now Meters. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My bad

My apologies, [1] not sure how that happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I accidentally edited an older version of the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No worries. Was trying to figure out what you were trying to do but GB fan was faster. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Recurrent (active) vandal

Could you please review my report of Doubtfulcarriage? They have vandalized multiple articles and are clearly a vandalism only account adding content to articles insulting me as well for reverting their vandalism. Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported, Special:Contributions/Doubtfulcarriage --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Materialscientist --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Male opinion on male body type at the Adolescence article?

What is your opinion on what I stated here? For a comparison of the images, see here and here. I was in high school before and I have brothers; so, yes, I know that some boys (especially the ones on the football or basketball team) can be buff, but I feel that the second image displays a type that is less common than the type displayed in the previous image, and could leave some readers (including teenage males visiting the article) with a less realistic impression. I know that Grayfell is watching that article too; so maybe he also has an opinion on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor also added an image here, but I didn't revert that. Looking at both images, it appears to me that it's not just flexing that makes the boy look buff; he actually is buff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I've reverted at the other article as it's a pretty poor photo for what the article is about. --NeilN talk to me 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was beginning to wonder if maybe my posting this here was inappropriate somehow. I know that commenting on people's bodies can have an awkwardness to it, and, in this case, the editor might not even be a legal adult (like 18 or 19). I didn't mind the image at the other article, but I understand your reason for reverting it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Plasma lamp article

Hello NeilN, thank you to draw attention on the Wikipedia rules. I don't understand the reason of your action. I have only introduce the list of all manufacturers that produce this technology, this is neutral point of view. I'm not in conflict with the rules because all manufacturer are listed. If you analysis the history of this page, I have contributed to this page in 2014. But, in 2016, another contoributor has modified the page to place the companies Ceravision and Luxim that are the only manufacturer. This is not right that the rest of manufacturer are not listed, or you need suppress all names of manufacturers. Moreover, the article was completely modified to place Ceravision and Luxim the only company that made innovation on this technology, this is completely wrong. I works with light every days and I follow this technology since 2004. This is not right that these companies present a wrong reality. This is advertising without possibility for the other manufacturers to exist. Thank you in advance for your reply. Have a nice end of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumieresuisse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lumieresuisse: You de-emphasized two companies and prominently added Lumatrix with an external link and ad-copy similar in tone to what was in your deleted Lumartix article. What is your connection to this company? --NeilN talk to me 16:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: This is not true, I have added all companies manufacturer with no special preference. I have no link with any companies, I'm only a scientist that works with new lamps generation for our internal test bench. And you, what is your background and link with Ceravision company ?
@Lumieresuisse: Here's the diff of your edit. And I have no connection with the industry. I came across the article because I was looking at the edits of this IP. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

AAH

Dear NeilN,
Hesitant and flabbergasted though I am to say this - please return to the AAH page if you could! The new guys don't even adhere to their own rules or logic, but at least with you there was a coherent discussion and reason! Aquapess (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administration

I saw the administrator's newsletter on your talk page and I was wondering, how do administrators get removed? Does it need to be voted on or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That is a question with a lot of history in the answer. Short answer: WP:DESYSOP. You can see a rare involuntary desysop (probably) unfold here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_de-sysop_Jondel --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to explain as well as for the link to that rare involuntary desysop discussion, I shall watch that as it does appear interesting. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(tps) TheSandDoctor, if you're referring to the administrators in the newsletter above, they were either desysopped because they were no longer active on the project (per WP:INACTIVITY) or because they specifically requested it at WP:BN. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
DoRD Thanks, that is partially what I meant but also meant in general (which NeilN answered) :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Endercase

I just wanted to extend my apologies for the frustration Endercase is giving. I've been attempting to help mentor him for a month or two now, specifically on issues dealing with the administration of WP. I can't help but think I've done a poor job. I know he purports to have Asperger's syndrome, and that as a high-functioning Aspie myself, I can recognize the signs in him. I thought I could help get through to him that he needs to leave administrative matters alone, especially to do with sockpuppets. Obviously, I haven't done a very good job of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I know you think my revocation of TP access was a bit "harsh", but I think you are being way too hard on yourself. You can't help someone who refuses to be helped, no matter how hard you try.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think that you're doing a poor job at all - Endercase just isn't accepting your advice, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I was unaware of the Asperger's syndrome. That last comment of his just drove me over the edge. It's like comparing sock masters to African American slaves because they're both chained up or some other nonsensical comparison. He just needs to edit articles as many of us including you have said. --NeilN talk to me 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the votes of confidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
He takes AGF to extremes. It's difficult to see, because he can get really sarcastic. But he assumes that sockmasters are here to help the project, and if you or I assumed that, we'd likely agree with him. It's just that, well, we both know better. Socking fundamentally harms the project by putting false weight behind the views of those willing to sock, and allowing editors to avoid scrutiny when they want to make a POV edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I have no doubt that some sockmasters are here to help the project. But they want to help strictly on their own terms which is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. I've (three times now) blocked an editor who insists on going around adding an Oxford comma to existing content despite being told by numerous editors to stop. Now using the Oxford comma is usually a totally arbitrary choice and I like the Oxford comma myself and I totally get she thinks she's improving the project but respecting existing stylistic choices of other editors is a must here or else we'd have edit wars breaking out all over the place. If she resorts to socking then the socks will be blocked as well, despite her genuine desire to help the encyclopedia. And it's not like sockmasters don't have paths back to editing. They can do it legitimately by making an unblock appeal after an appropriate time has passed or they can do it illegitimately by quietly editing under a new account. We don't have proactive checkuser or teams of editors looking for ephemeral links to blocked editors. Every so often I come across a "new" editor which I recognize as a sock because of stylistic oddities. But they're editing quietly and uncontentiously, far away from what got them into trouble in the first place so I shrug and let them improve the encyclopedia, but ready to block if they show any signs of returning to their old ways. And, really, that's why the community has little patience with non-vandal sockmasters - complete failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I meant when I said socking fundamentally hurts. I should have said that he assumes that all sockmasters are here only to help the project, because that's where the disconnect is. Like you said, if a banned user makes a new account and stays out of trouble, then I agree that there's nothing more to do than keep an eye on them. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, after all. Letting someone keep their pride by refusing to admit fault when it's nonetheless clear they've either internalized responsibility or at least learned what will fly and what won't is just kind of an obvious way of helping keep the drama level down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: remember that you're not the first to have tried hard to help him, too. At least two other experienced editors tried, with limited success. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalising Saffron terror page

Please refrain from vandalising the contents. Gujarat burning of train culminated in to riots in 2002. People have been convicted in court for burning the train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleHumanBeing (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is also cited in the content. Refrain from vandalising the content.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12605659 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleHumanBeing (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@ASimpleHumanBeing: Accusing experienced editors of vandalism is not a particularly wise thing to do. Please read WP:NOTVAND. When your block for edit warring expires please join the discussion I started at Talk:Saffron_terror#Edit_to_2002_Gujarat_riots after reverting. You should have started this discussion yourself after your addition was reverted for the first time. --NeilN talk to me 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #18181

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #18181 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Endercase (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: May 03, 2017 17:56:29

Message: Any thoughts please?

Notes:

  • If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
  • Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: Have you seen User_talk:NeilN#Endercase and User_talk:Bbb23#Endercase.27s_talk_page_access? --NeilN talk to me 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Just Chilling (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help there

though I rather like Sayerslle's always colorful (now redacted) edit summaries. -Darouet (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: What's the article they're raging on about (so I can keep an eye on it)? --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: it's Ghouta chemical attack, and specifically Ghouta chemical attack#Allegations of false flag attack. I'm not sure if it was their behavior there or elsewhere that got them banned. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, already on my watchlist. --NeilN talk to me 20:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

WP:GS/SCW is general sanctions, not discretionary sanctions. Actions under it are best described as "general sanctions actions" not "AE actions", as we're enforcing a community decision, not arbitration remedies. ~ Rob13Talk 05:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And as a secondary FYI, the log entries at Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike may look like I was reverting your action without context, but I was just history-merging a sandbox into the article. It was started originally as a copy-paste move from sandbox. It's back to being deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 05:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Absolutely right. Will remember next time. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed also that the action still needs logging at WP:GS/SCW. I'll leave that to you. ~ Rob13Talk 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I've added it but is there a reason why, in four years, you (and me, following your lead) are the only one logging these actions? --NeilN talk to me 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, enforcement has been genuinely that shoddy in this topic area. Discretionary sanctions are well-documented and people generally tend to know where to find them. General sanctions, not so much. ~ Rob13Talk 11:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clear & Present Danger accuracy disputes

In what way were my reports considered "false?" What I have been seeing in the past twelve hours is that edits were constantly reverted with little to no explanation. It seems that no matter what explanation I give in the edit summary for my respective edits,said explanations are outright ignored by OldJacobite and other editors that don't seem to be fully aware of the full context of the movies. As a result of those reverts, I am left with the impression that their reverts in question have been done in [[Bad faith. I own a DVD copy of the film in question, and made my edits accordingly based on the film's information to ensure accuracy. How am I supposed to get into "dispute resolution" if I'm outright ignored, if not dismissed? OldJacobite has been very evasive whenever I give out edits that are correct for the sake of accuracy. This isn't the first time I've had a problem with him. Dibol (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dibol: I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Disagreeing with your changes ("He never identifies Ramirez") is not vandalism. As I said on your talk page, use the article's talk page to discuss your change. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

AE Question

Hello NeilN. I posted on a user's page to show him what I believe is a simple violation of 1RR at the Russian interference article. Link here: [2]. His response appears to deny that this is a violation. Could you please have a look and advise me as to your view? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Link updated and corrected [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JFG#1RR_violation_at_Russian_interference

Replied here --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have restored the talk thread from the archive and repeated and elaborated a little on the edit summary I gave when I undid the reinsertion of the disputed wording. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello NeilN. A similar incident occurred today on JFG's talk page. However in the current case I was not even going there to mention his DS violation, but merely asking him to reconsider an "edit without consensus" on the Russian Intervention page. I feel that his response is hostile and inappropriate. In light of what Admin Sandstein called his lengthy personal attacks against me [3] at his appeal of his block for the previous violation and his subsequent complaints against me at AE that were swiftly dismissed, I am disinclined to go to AE for another round of drama. FYI, his two reverts at that article are [4] [5]. His behavior is getting to be problematic because some of it has the affect of casting aspersions at me, e.g. listing my notices of 1RR violations on users' talk pages as if they were threats rather than attempts to resolve DS issues without going to an AE complaint or Admin. These notifications are widespread practice on 1RR articles and I believe that most editors view them as analogous to an edit-warring template that in most cases calms 3RR issues without undue drama. I have never filed an AE complaint against another user, but most of the users whose notifications JFG claims are "unfounded" were in fact subsequently sanctioned for DS violations. Sorry for the lengthy visit here, but I think part of the problem is that JFG does not understand the WP policy with respect to "revert", despite Admins having tried to explain to him that his various denials of reverts are incorrect. He frequently misreads talk page discussions as if there were consensus for his views and preemptively inserts them in various articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I did not agree with Sandstein's comment in the appeal and this is a completely satisfactory explanation for the edit. As someone who is heavily involved in editing that article, you should be able to spot factual corrections readily. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's fine but I would hope in the future he would simply explain his rationale rather than repeat his accusations only to make that statement after an Admin comes to visit. In my opinion we'd all be better off without the extra effort. For your information, this explanation does not address the concern @BullRangifer: raised, namely that with a fast-moving story the date of opinions must be related to a timeline of what was known at the time of the comments. Because JFG says "in another report..." without specifying the date, the reader does not know that facts reported after January 2017 were not a factor in that opinion. Anyone may disagree with Bullrangifer's concern, but I do not agree with you that JFG's after-the-fact explanation is fully responsive to this issue. I also note Bullrangifer's concern, stated on talk, that this is at least the second time JFG has edited around Bullrangifer's concern. Anyway, thanks for your response. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have responded on JFG's talk page and thanked him for the explanation. A better edit summary could have spared us for drama. He needs to do that in the future. He and Thucydides411 are some of the "truthers" editing those pages, and they are constantly seeking to undermine what RS say. They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources. Their editing tends in that direction all the time.
Editors who consume and believe unreliable sources in real life cause problems here. The ability to vet sources is fundamental to being a good editor, as is the ability to change one's mind and bring one's opinions into line with what is found in RS. A lack of that ability is the mark of a tendentious and disruptive editor. Their efforts successfully create huge amounts of wasted time on the talk pages. While I have no evidence they are directly working for Trump or Putin, they are certainly doing what Putin and Trump want to be done here, which is to obstruct and disrupt the documentation of these events. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't cited any of the outlets you list (RT, Breitbart, Infowars, or Drudge Report; "Trump" isn't a media outlet). As far as I can see, neither has JFG. I've been citing sources like BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde and Ars Technica. I consider it a pretty massive personal attack for you to call me a "truther," to falsely claim I rely on Breitbart, Infowars, etc., and to imply I'm a paid agent of the Kremlin or Trump (this is the second time you've made that accusation now). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
What the fuck are these personal attacks, BullRangifer? "Truther", "working for Putin", "undermine what RS say", "views from very unreliable sources". Show me ONE time that I cited any of the sources you quote. ONE. I'll spare you the search: there is none. You should calm down and retract all this. Yes, we do waste an awful amount of time on this article, because some editors keep bludgeoning the talk page and never admit their contradictions. I'm a very patient kind of person, striving to build consensus; been conducting an RfC on the lead section for example, taking EVERYBODY's opinion into account, because my only goal is to IMPROVE Wikipedia for READERS. I'm not pushing a political agenda, I laugh at Russian propaganda as much as I laugh at American propaganda, Turkish propaganda or Chinese propaganda. If the article was biased towards Trump, I'd work to correct it the other way. It's been so biased towards the "Russians are taking over the USA" narrative that is sounds utterly ridiculous to any sensible non-American reader, no matter what media they read. And for my own part, I can assure you that I read a lot of media with diverse points of view. You have quite some nerve to come blurting out aspersions on fellow editors on an admin's talk page. And the trivial stuff you guys criticize, like asking me to provide a better edit summary than "copyedit" for an edit which is an obvious copyedit. Take a look at my contribs: I ALWAYS provide clear edit summaries. Naturally, when the shoe is on the other foot, SPECIFICO can go ahead and change that stuff back with no edit summary at all,[6] and I don't see other editors demanding an explanation or making false accusations. Oh well, enough ranting for tonight. NeilN, sorry to pollute your talk page with that. — JFG talk 23:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You pinged me about making clear the date (i.e. correcting the POV omission of the date that @Bullrangifer: asked not to reinsert here [7].) On first pass, NeilN accepted your rationale that your edit was "not a revert" and just an innocuous copy edit. But seeing your anger at the simple clarification as to the date kind of belies that excuse. The purpose of my edit was so clear from the context and the talk page and my note to you on your talk that I overlooked an edit summary. As you know, I have not found that your edit summaries are always accurate, but I am going to say no more because I don't have diffs at hand and anyway that evidence would not belong on this page. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edit is fine; I just noted you didn't care to provide an edit summary, while making pointy requests to me and assuming bad faith. And here you continue. Yes I'm angry; I bet you would be if somebody went whining to an admin that you're such a tendentious editor and a stooge of the Putin Trump Grand Alliance. — JFG talk 01:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you still maintain that your removal of the contextualizing date of the Daily Beast cite was a "copy edit" and not a revert? And do you stand by your insistence that your edit did not change the meaning, [8] despite the concern of Bullrangifer and others on the talk page? SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Didn't even read the talk page at the time, just corrected a wrong date and streamlined the wording. — JFG talk 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I said do you still maintain that? I can accept that you state it was not a revert given that you had not read the talk page objection. But after I linked to that objection and asked you to undo, that excuse no longer applied. Instead of correcting your oversight based on information you had overlooked, you replied with angry denial. And frankly as long as both you and Thucydides411 are here, you have both used the article talk page for personal disparagement of many editors who are trying to conform the article to WP policy and sourcing standards. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Enough. Nobody is obliged to WP:SATISFY your zillion requests for clarification. — JFG talk 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG and Thucydides411, you both need to improve your reading comprehension and parsing abilities. Stick to my EXACT wording (keeping contextual modifying words), don't assume anything not EXACTLY said, and don't respond with straw man attacks. You're both pretty thin-skinned for editors who have such strong opinions:

  1. You are CHOOSING to consider "truther" a personal attack, but it's the closest word which applies. You both subscribe to the view that Russia has done nothing wrong. If you ever show evidence that such is not your view, please alert me to the diff of your retraction of such views and I may stop using that description. Since you don't like it, what would be a better or more accurate description?
  2. I did NOT say that either of you have cited those unreliable sources: "They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources." Whether you actually read them or only parrot them, it's an undeniable fact that those are the main sources of such views. Those views are NOT found in RS.
  3. "Trump" isn't a media outlet." Of course not. Trump is not considered a "media outlet", and I never claimed he was, but he is an extremely unreliable source. That was my point: "They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources."
  4. I clearly do NOT imply either of you are "paid agent[s] of the Kremlin or Trump", only that your editing here makes them happy. Any interpretation beyond that is on you.

I look forward to the day when your editing does not tend to "undermine what RS say". So far I haven't seen evidence that you are changing your minds and bringing your "opinions into line with what is found in RS". When that happens, you won't get so much flack for your tendentious editing patterns. Right now, methinks thou dost protest too much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I note that you did not care to express the slightest apology. And you are doubling down criticizing my "reading comprehension"… Splendid! With that, I have nothing left to discuss with you except article contents. Back at the talk page please, where a bunch of content-related questions have been awaiting your reply for the better part of a month now. NeilN, sorry again to pollute your talk page. — JFG talk 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You're pretty brave to repeat all these smears again on an admin's talk page. You think you're being clever enough that you can call JFG and me "truthers," say we parrot RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report and Trump, and imply that we're paid agents of the Kremlin and Trump, and then say you didn't do anything of the sort. What you're doing is not that clever. It's obvious.

@NeilN: I'm requesting a block against BullRangifer, preferably long enough to make it clear that these sorts of massive personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I've asked BullRangifer to quit these sorts of attacks before, but BullRangifer insists on continuing them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to single out BullRangifer but comments like this – veiled attacks, snide remarks, questioning editor motives and competence – are constant on the talk page and poison the environment. For example this is the most recent talk page comment:
  • I think it's ironic that one of the extraordinarily small number of editors still beating this dead horse months later has the gal to accuse others of wasting their time. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
It's not helpful and too frequent. The article needs an admin or admins to step in with a zero tolerance policy for PAs and off-topic comments. Unaddressed they will drive away every editor who prefers editing to arguing. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That was me who made that comment, and it was made after several editors (including myself) had explained that this argument has been going on for months with no indication of any change in the nature of the sources or the consensus of this community, and to which the editor I was referring to (Thucydides411) responded by claiming that the editors disagreeing with him are wasting his time. Also, I fully stand by it as a statement of fact. An editor waging a campaign against a longstanding consensus has absolutely no ethical or logical ground to stand on when complaining about a waste of other editor's time. Also, NeilN, should you decide to take Thucydides' request for a block against BullRangifer seriously, I strongly suggest you look through Thucydides comments in that thread. Virtually every comment of his which I've read contains a mild personal attack of one form or another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I would be perfectly fine with NeilN reading through the talk page at the "Russian interference" article. The environment there is certainly contentious, but most editors have refrained from calling each other shills or stooges for Putin and Trump, swearing at one another, etc. I've only asked for a block against BullRangifer for the very specific reason that they have now repeatedly called me and JFG agents of the Kremlin and Trump, Infowars peddlers, and "truthers." I find a lot of other behavior on the talk page objectionable (e.g., general nastiness, the complete dismissal by many editors of evidence of reliable sources treating "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation), but it doesn't rise to the level of sanction-worthy behavior, in my opinion. BullRangifer previously implied I was a Trump/Putin shill (diff), but at least had the decency to strike those comments last time around. Now, they've repeated the insinuation against both me and JFG, and I think enough is enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides: At least we don't see other editors slamming Admins on the Admins' talk pages like you did at @Neutrality:'s [9] [10]. And that doesn't even get into your conduct on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I should have anticipated that asking for a block would lead to a general slugfest, with multiple editors piling on and requesting retaliatory sanctions, but I'm really asking for a very specific block in reaction to what I consider especially egregious behavior: the repeated insinuation that certain editors are agents of Putin and Trump. After a couple months of contentious editing at the "Russian interference" article, we all have our catalogs of grievances against one another, but I'm not raising any of those here. I'm asking for a sanction against BullRangifer because of the repeated insinuation that JFG and I are agents of Putin/Trump, "truthers," and Infowars peddlers. That really goes beyond anything I've seen surrounding the "Russian interference" article, and I think a point has to be made that such behavior is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thuc, It's not appropriate to make these accusations without diffs -- that's not going to cure anything. Also, you say above that you've only asked for a block vs. Bullrangifer, but I recall you seeking blocks for many other editors on various occasions, for example in the course of your appeal of one of your own blocks. I'd ask you to let things lie. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Two of the times that BullRangifer made these insinuations are directly above, and I linked to a diff of the previous insinuation in another comment above. Here is it again: diff. In my AE appeal, I raised the question of blocking other editors only because I was blocked for an interpretation of editing policy that many editors on the page had followed, including editors who were leading the charge that I be blocked (yourself, for example). It was purely a question of consistency in applying sanctions, and the obvious unfairness of applying an interpretation of policy (at odds with the interpretation that had been elaborated by admins on the talk page) to one particular editor, but not to other editors. I'm not given to bringing cases against other editors (I may be blanking, but I can't remember ever bringing a case at AE or ANI), but this is particularly egregious behavior, which has now been repeated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides, you've been blocked for DS violations at least two times that I remember without checking. In your epic appeal of one of them you falsely cited this "interpretation" of policy by misrepresenting the words of an Admin out of context. Your statement that I followed your "interpretaion" is false. ASPERSIONS without diffs are irrelevant and counterproductive. It's also counterproductive to rely on your "elaboration" because your appeal fell flat. It was not credible at the time, so let's not exhume the dead. Bullrangifer seems pretty widely-read in the topic area and pretty well-informed as to WP policy. I think he does make a valid point that, even if you're upset, it is helpful to focus on his exact words and not assume there's any malice or further insinuation behind them. WP does have policies as to UNDUE and FRINGE in articles and it's not inappropriate for editors to reject such content when it is being advocated for article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You're giving a very inaccurate description of the "epic appeal." First of all, I didn't misrepresent the words of an admin (NeilN was actually one of the admins in question, and I cited their words faithfully, with context). The idea that I misrepresented NeilN's policy interpretation was simply an accusation you made at the time. Second of all, that appeal didn't fall flat at all. A majority of the admins who commented at the appeal supported overturning the sanction, and the only reason the appeal was closed was because the sanction ran out. Third of all, the second discretionary sanction was rescinded, and you can check my talk page to see that it's been struck.
However, I don't know why you raise this, since it's completely off topic. The issue I'm raising is the repeated insinuation by BullRangifer that JFG and I are agents of Trump/Putin, that we parrot Infowars, and that we're "truthers." I don't think I'm reaching very far to assume malice and insinuation behind BullRangifer's words, as much as they now protest that they meant nothing of the sort (while, of course, repeating the insinuations in their denials). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411, ignoring what I have written above is not a good strategy and shows extremely bad faith on your part. I have repeatedly denied that I have insinuated that you and JFG are "agents of Trump/Putin". I have also explained the matter in detail. Now I've denied it again. Your repetitions of that false charge are blatant false charges and personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"While I have no evidence they are directly working for Trump or Putin, they are certainly doing what Putin and Trump want to be done here, which is to obstruct and disrupt the documentation of these events." I'm sorry, but you can't write that and then claim you didn't mean to insinuate anything. This is a massive personal attack, and rather than apologizing and retracting it, you doubled down. I already objected last time you made such an insinuation (which led you to strike it), so repeating it here appears to me like a calculated insult. You're being just a bit too clever here by repeating the obvious insinuation over and over again, while protesting that I'm misreading you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, out of respect for your concern I reviewed that AE appeal thread of yours. Without commenting on your intentions or motives, I acknowledge that you find this topic area very stressful and upsetting. Many editors pointed out your misappropriation of snippets of Admin comment unrelated to your specific violation and detailed the equivocations and misrepresentations in your denials. This is a difficult area to edit, and sometimes it's a good idea to take a break and try to come back refreshed rather than to rush on in anger after things have turned sour in a particular situation. I hope you'll find this helpful. I won't be commenting to you again in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"Many editors pointed out your misappropriation of snippets of Admin comment unrelated to your specific violation." I'm sorry, but the claim that I misappropriated snippets of admin comments is simply false. MelanieN and NeilN wrote about exactly the policy that applied in my case, and I accurately restated the editing advice that MelanieN gave us on the talk page. One of the people you're saying I misquoted, MelanieN, called my sanction a miscarriage of justice, and the other, NeilN, favored lifting the sanction. You keep repeating the idea that I misquoted their statements on policy, but you're simply wrong there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested that we pursue some kind of dispute resolution, since in posts over the last few days, communication has really broken down. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: We should certainly engage into a wide-ranging dispute resolution process about article contents, but this particular thread is about conduct: personal attacks + aspersions + AGF breakdown should no longer be tolerated. We may also discuss obstructionism and stonewalling, but that's a mix of content and conduct, better addressed in a content forum. — JFG talk 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Should conduct issues be reported to AE, AN, ANI? Or is the present discussion on an admin page sufficient? — JFG talk 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darouet: I would also support some sort of dispute resolution or mediation for content questions, but I agree with JFG that here is an issue here of personal conduct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 and JFG, I mentioned that your reading comprehension and parsing skills needed to improve, and your following remarks above prove me right. Since you have obviously failed to reread and properly parse my EXACT words, you keep on repeating the false charges against me.

Where on earth have I done the following? Please provide my EXACT words. Otherwise withdraw the false accusations and straw man attacks. Here are examples from above:

  • "imply that we're paid agents of the Kremlin and Trump"
  • "the repeated insinuation that certain editors are agents of Putin and Trump"

That you agree with Putin and Trump and push their POV is an undeniable fact. If you don't like that being pointed out, then stop doing it. Only unreliable sources push those POV, and neither of you need be a "paid agent" to push such POV. If you can't see the difference, I'm afraid I can't help you. I don't know your mother tongues. Maybe that's the problem, but in English, even average parsing skills should make it clear that your agreeing with Putin and Trump doesn't mean you are their paid agents, and I have NEVER implied you are.

Sharing a POV is not a crime, but it's pretty easy to see that both of you share the same POV as Trump and Putin. Such people are called "truthers". All of your editing and discussions tend in that direction, and your endless repetitions of the same rejected arguments just wastes our time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the above comment speaks for itself. I really can't accept this sort of abuse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Although I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue this exchange, you are making an interesting point, so I will indulge.
First, you do not know whether I "agree with Putin and Trump"; I don't even pretend to know what Trump or Putin think, and I bet they have different views on many issues. Trump is notorious for contradicting himself every few minutes, so I don't see how anyone could be said to agree with his POV. Pretending that you know the personal views of editors based on your perception of their editing is at best naive, at worst an unwarranted aspersion. Astute Wikipedians are able to juggle five different POVs and evaluate them in light of facts, sources and logic. Discussing a POV or even calling a POV realistic doesn't make you married to that POV. In particular on subject matters such as this, where propaganda plays a central role, editors must strive to detach from any POV present in sources. Dissenters with you are simply pointing out that all sources have a POV and many of them have an agenda for pushing a POV or another. Yes, that includes the US intelligence agencies as well as the Russian ones.
Second, a "truther" is specifically a person advocating exotic explanations about the 9/11 attacks, or more generally a believer in conspiracy theories. Our article on conspiracy theories says:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.

Therefore, calling your fellow editors "truthers" is unambiguously a personal attack with a deliberately-chosen derogatory term. You could have called us POV-pushers if that's the meaning you wanted to convey; "truther" goes well beyond that, because it attacks the person, not just the message.
Third, if we accept the Wikipedia definition that a conspiracy theory generally involves an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors, then we can say that Russian interference in the U.S. elections is itself a conspiracy theory. Oh the irony. — JFG talk 23:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting glimpse into your own thinking, and exclusively your own, since I don't seek to stretch things in that way. Again, stick to my exact words and don't add any of your own meanings and straw men. You changed your mind and decided "it would be worthwhile to continue this exchange", but it wasn't worth it; lots of heat but no light. I think Objective3000's suggestion below is wise and will just stop here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I am only addressing your own statements about me, I'm not "stretching" your words. You wrote: That you agree with Putin and Trump and push their POV is an undeniable fact. and it's pretty easy to see that both of you share the same POV as Trump and Putin. – my first paragraph addresses this. You repeatedly called Thucydides, myself and unnamed other editors "truthers", (He and Thucydides411 are some of the "truthers" editing those pages) and you wrote about "people who agree with Trump and Putin" that Such people are called "truthers." – my second paragraph addresses that. My third paragraph is more of a sarcastic remark, showing that by sticking to the accepted definition of a conspiracy theory, people who believe the whole "Russians are killing our democracy" narrative without a grain a salt could well be called "truthers" as well. But I don't call anyone names, you do. — JFG talk 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Before editors in this thread cheer the idea of escalating this discussion to one of the drama boards; I suggest they spend a bit of time at examination of their own houses for glass construction. Particularly given recent visits by some editors. Just a suggestion. Let’s just calm down and go back to discussion. And, realize that discussions must come to conclusions at some point. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Will review the above later. --NeilN talk to me 06:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, it might be worth considering whether you might reinstate the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision which is still in effect on most of the other American Politics DS pages and which would curtail the edit-warring that's recently occurred on this article with claims of "per talk" and the like. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Any comments yet? I appreciate that you are busy with a myriad things to handle, but I believe all editors who commented here would appreciate to read your views on the matter. Kind regards, — JFG talk 05:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and Thucydides411: As no diffs were presented regarding article content after the initial complaint, I will be limiting my comments to the conduct issues discussed here. Calling fellow editors "truthers" is not conducive to a collegial working environment or necessary. That word has specific negative connotations whatever "personal" meaning is attached to it. There was also an accusation of obstructing and disrupting work on the article by "doing what Putin and Trump want to be done here" made without diffs. The protestations of misreadings and suggestions that a lack of reading comprehension is at fault are unconvincing. "While I have no evidence they are directly working for Trump or Putin..." - another uninvolved editor introduced me to a new term last week that seems to fit here: apophasis. There's no need to go that extra mile to deliver a poke to another editor when this whole area is ready for a full Arbcom case seemingly every other day. Editors are also being accused of POV editing. This is a valid concern and may be true but without diffs it just becomes an unsubstantiated charge. Repeated often enough and it crosses into aspersion territory. I realize that showing a pattern of POV editing may be a hard thing to do but it's no use constantly repeating the accusation as nothing will be done without evidence. In short, follow what I'm sure all of you have heard a hundred times by now: "comment on content, not the contributor". If you want to comment on the editor then report them and provide diffs and specify what sanctions you're seeking. Cut out drama that isn't going to do anything. --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. — JFG talk 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @NeilN:. If you don't mind, could you have a look at the article talk page here [11] where after extended disussion one of the aggrieved editors, Thucidides, is today threatening again to add disputed content after numerous editors have objected on the talk page. As on this page, he's also peppering his remarks with personal disparagement of those who disagree with him. The recent history of the discussion is at [12]. We're recently seeing inappropriately accusatory and unconstructive remarks from JFG there as well. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I will look at this later today. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There's nothing urgent here, especially with all the other things your tending to. In the long run, I do think sorting out this behavioural stuff will save and redirect everyone's time and effort for constructive editing tasks. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We had a long discussion on whether or not to cite the article by Dan Goodin, which goes over what various cybersecurity analysts have written about the Joint Analysis Report (JAR). The majority opinion was that we should cite Goodin's article, and moreover, SPECIFICO and others simply haven't raised valid objections. The objections have ranged from WP:UNDUE (the JAR is central to the "Russian interference" affair, so a summary of the coverage of the JAR is due) to WP:FRINGE (Goodin very much represents the mainstream view, in fact) to the more general argument that only journalists who hold US security clearances (i.e., former US intelligence analysts) are competent to report on US intel reports (made here and here). That last argument just leaves me speechless. When it comes to covering US intel reports, Wikipedia should disregard journalists who aren't former members of the CIA/NSA/DHS? That's a policy I'd like to see in writing. How about a policy that when covering Russian intel claims, we can only cite current or former FSB agents? Or when covering claims made by Israeli intelligence, we can only cite former Mossad agents?
I frankly don't understand the extreme opposition to citing a reliable source that reflects mainstream opinion on the Joint Analysis Report. The closest I can come to an explanation is that the mainstream opinion is heavily critical of the JAR, and that that irks some editors. Otherwise, the extreme opposition to a relatively minor addition to the article is really baffling to me.
At some point, though, once it's clear that a majority of editors support citing Goodin's article, I don't see why a small number of editors should be able to exercise an effective veto. There have been many content disputes on the "Russian interference" page, and as SPECIFICO says, "numerous editors" have objected to many things that have ultimately been included on the page. Yet in almost every content dispute, we go with the majority opinion of editors. SPECIFICO is asking for the opposite to happen in this case.
As for the behavioral issues that SPECIFICO mentions, I have to say that I'm frankly getting tired of the repeated accusations that SPECIFICO's been leveling against me (and JFG, among other editors). SPECIFICO has been really insulting over and over again (for example, repeatedly calling Darouet a misogynist, and then calling me a misogynist when I told SPECIFICO not to make such accusations - the whole thread is here). To then have an editor who behaves this way repeatedly accuse me of incivility is really just amazing. I feel these accusations are approaching the level of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
...argument that only journalists who hold US security clearances (i.e., former US intelligence analysts) are competent to report on US intel reports (made here and here). That last argument just leaves me speechless. You stated this again on the Talk Page and I responded that this is NOT my position. Here you provide two diffs of mine claiming that I made an argument I would never make. Neutrality has proposed a compromise that includes the exact criticism that you wish to include, with a cite that is even stronger to that point, from a person with better creds. I suggest that you stop misrepresenting the arguments by others, WP:DROPTHESTICK, accept the compromise, and stop bothering admins that have better things to do. Objective3000 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I linked to two of your posts in which you pretty much directly say we can't cite Goodin because he's not a former US intelligence analyst (diff: "He doesn't even know what he doesn't know as he has never been a part of the intelligence community") and because he doesn't hold a US security clearance (diff: "He has demonstrated no government security clearance or knowledge of top secret analysis methodology"). Those were your arguments in favor of excluding the citation of Goodin. I don't know how else to possibly interpret the two statements I linked.
"stop bothering admins that have better things to do." You're addressing the wrong person here. I didn't raise this issue with NeilN.
"WP:DROPTHESTICK, accept the compromise". "Dropping the stick" in this case simply means allowing a minority of editors to veto a particular piece of content they don't like. We had a long conversation on Goodin, with a lot of input from different editors, and now you're saying that you still object, so tough luck. The same group of editors is very insistent on getting their way in every content dispute on the "Russian interference" page, even when the majority opinion is against them. At some point, you have to be willing to compromise and allow a majority view you disagree with to go through. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop translating my words into what you think they mean. You simply aren’t good at it. I stand by my actual words and will no longer attempt to explain them to you. Apologies to NielN for adding to this on your page. Objective3000 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It may be necessary to open a new Arbcom case to sort out the issues arising from with the relatively small number of editors who believe that WP's NPOV policy gives undue weight to the mainstream narratives of all the Amercian Politics events. @Neutrality: has raised this possibility at a current Arbcom Enforcement thread, and it could be the case that AE is not the way to deal with dozens of infractions. The frequency of such violations may indicate that the basic ruling should be revised to avoid subjective or partisan discussions about enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of User talk:Gv270311

Sorry about reverting the blanking of User talk:Gv270311, I took it to be an attempt to conceal the fact that they have been warned up to a level 4. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My hunch appears to possibly have been correct - they have resumed their promotional editing (adding back content you reverted). I have issued a 4im warning. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I think every editor has to be pointed to WP:BLANKING by another editor at least once. Blocked the account for 48 hours. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I realized that users can blank their own talk pages should they choose, however, thought this to be a slightly different case (which it may have been). Thanks for taking care of them. I am currently monitoring around 12 accounts whose contributions are questionable as well as sifting through the User creation log - blocking them freed up a tab haha. I have made note of that account though and will watch it after the unblock just to be sure it doesn't resume. If it does, should I just report it or talk to you or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Sure. I (or a talk page watcher) will pick it up. --NeilN talk to me 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism/disruptive editing

The talk page vandalism/disruptive editing something that an account can still be reported for at AIV? Special:Contributions/Dgffg sparked the question. Thanks for your help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I do it all the time. Just make sure that you give the offender the usual warnings. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
7&6 is correct. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't be precipitate. WP:Rope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

If I find offsite evidence of canvassing and can show that it was done by an editor, should I file an ANI thread, just notify an admin or don't worry about it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Kick it to arbcom (my first choice, as they stuck their fingers in WP:OUTING) via email or email an admin. Do not post anything publicly or you're risking a block depending on what you link to. --NeilN talk to me 04:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind terribly if I emailed it to you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: No, go ahead. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, sent. I appreciate the time and answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Hello again. I wonder if it's still safe for me to revert again 121.220.73.216's last edit on the Genesis creation narrative article. I have reverted twice already, and every revert caused more edits. I have reported to AIV but the queue seems long to process, and the last edit still removed useful information and stands there. If I understand, I could revert one last time (I can't really check easily if I reverted other vandalism on it in the last 24hrs), but then my limit would be reached anyway. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see that it just was reverted. Will wait and see for now. — PaleoNeonate — 06:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So I guess my question now becomes: was it blatant enough vandalism for the exception to be valid? And if so, could I just keep on reverting as necessary, or would an automated system warn/report me if I did? Thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 06:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This is somewhat difficult to answer because the result depends on what kind of admin processes the report at AIV. If the IP only stuck to messing about with the see also links then most admins would see that as disruption and exempt you from 3RR (especially if you posted a custom message on the IP's talk page asking what they were up to and they didn't answer). However a few might see it as a content dispute and act accordingly. The third revert would be seen as reverting vandalism by (hopefully) any admin per "Blanking, illegitimate" in WP:VANDTYPES. And there's no automated system that warns/reports for reverts. --NeilN talk to me 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. The first few edits were removal of the same information from the see also, although the last was removal of a referenced paragraph of the text. I let it stand there considering that my revert would likely trigger yet another delete-reaction, fortunately another editor reverted that later. I'm about to read vandtypes. The address was eventually blocked for two weeks (hours later), so it seems that the admin who processed the request also agreed that it was vandalism.
By the way, I started to find my old signature annoying (too bold despite attempts to reduce its contrast); noone ever complained to me yet, but if it was annoying to me, it may have been for some others as well... I had an AfD to fill and disabled the signature when realizing how pervasive it would be attached to every delsort-notice line. Have a good day, — PaleoNeonate — 23:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Helping out a new editor

Greetings NeilN. I hope this message finds you well. Please could you assist in deleting this revision of @Gbengaoshaks: userpage that contains his full names? He told me outside Wikipedia that he is uncomfortable that through "view history", his names was still accessible on WP. He doesn't want his full identity online through WP. He is quite passionate about the project and will become very active very soon. Also, he discovered that his WP username is too close to his real name, a Google search of his WP username shows his profile at his workplace on the first page. He wants it changed to another pseudonym, please what is the process of doing that? Thanks. Darreg (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darreg. I've done the revdel. Please see WP:CHU for directions on how to change a username. He can also simply register a new account and start editing using that. --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. He would leave a note soon to acknowledge this message. He deeply appreciates it. Darreg (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @NeilN: for the revdel, and thank you @Darreg: for the intervention. I now feel more protected in the community. I will go through the information on WP:CHU as suggested. Thank you once again. Gbengaoshaks (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome Gbengaoshaks. Hope you'll enjoy editing here. --NeilN talk to me 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome sir. You know why I'm very enthusiastic about your zeal to become active on Wikipedia, you learn things very fast on your own, which is expected considering your educational background. The only thing I explained to you was how to add references, but I see that you've already learnt how to ping on wiki, ordering of replies hierarchically and signing your posts with the four tides. 70% of new editors usaully need someone to tell them that before they start doing it. If it makes you feel any better, I'm one of the 70.Darreg (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about account creation requests

Hi there Niel, I know that I do not (most likely) qualify for the account creator right as I do not have experience in that area, however, I was wondering if there was any way that I could help out with the requests since, as a regular user, I do have access to create a limited number of accounts (every 24 hours) with Special:CreateAccount. I have been looking around Wikipedia however I have not been able to find a list of open requests, is that page only open to account creators or? If it is not open for non-account creator users, I understand. I want to help out the project where I can in my spare time (as I am doing at AfC, New Page Reviewer, and reverting vandalism). Thank you for your time and assistance. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TheSandDoctor: Account creation requests are not handled on Wikipedia. They are handled by the Account Creations Team using the ACC interface since requests contain personally identifying information. See Wikipedia:Request an account for the instructions for users requesting an account and Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide for details on how requests are handled. The requirements for access to the interface are also listed at WP:ACC/G. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Need a REV-ALTER (instead of REV-DEL)

Hello NeilN,

I have a question about requesting administrator assistance to *alter* (not delete) revision history information. (I found your name at CAT:REVDEL and you have helped me with other matters in the past.) I have heard of WP:REVDEL, but I have a case where I believe the proper remedy is alteration, not deletion, of Revision History information: the requested alteration would be to change the /* Section title name */ that appears in the beginning of the edit summary line for certain edits in the History, because the section title includes a username, in contravention to the guideline at WP:TALKNEW.

If this is the wrong venue for this sort of request, I apologize in advance, and can you point me to where I should go to request it?

This case involves Template talk:Expand language, and its Revision History.

I just recently learned of WP:TALKNEW, in particular the point that "...using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history."

Template talk:Expand language is a case like this, because that is exactly what has happened. Until minutes ago this talk page had a section like this, which I have just altered to appear more neutral. But I now see that the Revision History of the page contains numerous references to the old section title, including the username, and this seems an unfair reflection on this user, per the policy. So, I am requesting the following remedy:

Is there a way to accomplish this change without deleting the revision history, but merely altering it to conform with the current section title, sans username? If so, and you are able and willing to do it, once the history modification is complete, please {{ping}} me here, and I will remove the {{Anchor}} I added to the page to preserve links to the old section title.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Notes

  1. ^ I don't wish to spell out the section title here in order not to exacerbate the visibility problem, but the title matches this regex (not including the slashes): /User (.*?) is trying to change the placement of expand language templates without consensus/.
  2. ^ Or, if it's desirable to preserve existing revision history as much as possible, then it would be acceptable to use the old section title, with the username replaced by asterisks, or by "[redacted]" or some such formulation.
(talk page watcher) @Mathglot: Edit summaries cannot be modified, only (un)hidden via WP:REVDEL (or WP:OS). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thanks for your comment. Leaving the history as is seems unfair to the User, but removing all trace of the edits in the history doesn't seem ideal, either. The content on the Talk page is okay (or at least, not egregiously contrary to policy as the section title is); is it possible to hide the entries from the History, without removing the corresponding content from the Talk page itself? I mean, just the text content of the page that corresponds to the to-be-hidden revision entries; the section title itself on the talk page is not at issue, as it's already been changed. We want to keep the content of the Talk section that had the bad title, and not lose those edits.
What's the best way forward here? Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: This does not come close to meeting the criteria for a revdel, sorry. --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand, which is why I wasn't asking for it originally. I'm not aware of all possible tools and solutions admins have at their disposal, and I was hoping to find something short of revdel, to avoid leaving the current, "especially egregious" (per WP:TALKNEW) situation in place. Do I understand you to imply there is nothing that can be done here? That's unfortunate, if true. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: That's correct. There's no such thing revedit and it is not an "especially egregious" situation. If it was, I would revdel all the prior versions and edit summaries that contained the offensive text and left your version in place so no content would be "lost". --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I see you were quoting from TPG. To clarify, it is not egregious enough to merit admin action. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope to be corrected if I'm mistaken, but my impression is that this crossed slightly into uncivil behavior, but is really not close to the gravity of outing or oversight. I think that the editor(s) involved should be warned to avoid personal attacks and casting public aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS). — PaleoNeonate — 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: At most, the editor should be pointed towards WP:TALKNEW. But they stopped editing in September 2016. --NeilN talk to me 00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 00:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the opinions and advice all around. I have no prior knowledge of revdel/outing/oversight (other than the names themselves) so I'm learning from these comments. It appears that the initial situation that sparked my query is very minor, compared to other things you apparently all have to deal with (and that, thankfully, I have not encountered). Really what got me here, was that policy comment about "especially egregious", and imagining myself in the place of that user, with such comments surviving in the history. Luckily, that page has pretty low visibility, so I guess the risk of damage to their rep is pretty small, and we'll have to just let it go at that. I don't regret coming here to ask, because I thought the question was worthwhile, and I've learned something in the bargain. So I appreciate your time, and thanks again, all. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Alliance University

Please look into the section Family feud. the section is written without any proper citations and using the words like criminal and fraud its look like paid to write intentionally please neutralise the section. Bullus 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bullus: You will need to join the discussion at Talk:Alliance_University#Website_.26_postholders. And please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK. --NeilN talk to me 05:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons vs English Wikipedia

I was just wondering, by having an English Wiki Wikipedia account, you have a commons account as well, does the administrator/bureaucrat right 'transfer' to commons? Are any administrators on a Wikipedia project/language site admins on both? (to be clear, not asking for examples). I just thought of that a few minutes ago and thought I would ask. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TheSandDoctor: Nope, you have to submit and pass an RfA on each sister project individually. There are a handful of global sysops and stewards with admin rights on all or most projects, and some English Wikipedia admins do happen to also be admins on Commons, but the majority of admins here are not admins on any other Wikimedia wikis. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: Thanks for answering my (admittedly out of the blue) question, was simply curious. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance in closing a Categories for discussion entry

Hi there NeilN, I was just wondering if you could please close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_3#Category:The_Rolling_Stones_documentary_films since it has been moved boldly by another user? I have seen the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions but I am unsure if I could/should close it myself (as a non-admin closure). Thank you for your time and help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Done. --NeilN talk to me 07:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Staples88

Hi NeilN, you may be interested in this edit.--TM 15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Namiba: I've asked for an explanation. If you're watching the article, please let me know if the editor continues their disruption. --NeilN talk to me 07:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you'd take a look

I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at this sanction, and this discussion. The admin who issued the block references the previous DS I was given (which you might recall led to a lengthy discussion at AE), which I feel is incorrect, since that DS seemed to be on the verge of repeal before it ran out (rendering the appeal moot and leading to its closure). The idea that this DS is now being used as justification for a second, much lengthier sanction is precisely what I feared when the sanction appeal was closed without result.

I also think that the admin who issued this new sanction did not carefully read through the edit history or the talk page before issuing a sanction. When I asked them for diffs showing how I had restored contentious material, they mistakenly labeled an edit that added new material as a "revert," and pointed to an RfC about an entirely different topic (as evidence that I was pre-empting discussion). The only real grounds for the 3-month sanction seem to be that I objected to the removal of an IP's comment from the talk page - something I gave up on after it became clear that a number of editors were insistent on removing it.

In any case, I'd appreciate if you could give the issue a look. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I'm not thrilled the talk page post was summarily removed but you should have stopped at two reverts. That being said, I cannot see the justification for a three month ban. If you're not satisfied with Lord Roem's replies to your subsequent inquiries then you'll need to file a formal appeal to get the ban lifted. --NeilN talk to me 08:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Lord Roem has lifted the ban in favor of a warning, so a formal appeal won't be necessary. Regards, -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 61 (U.S. series)

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent long-term abuse? And Now That's What I Call Music! discography too. 115.164.81.159 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What block is 109 evading? --NeilN talk to me 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Trends in RfA submissions

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship for the fun of it (plus I was bored and looking at old RfA submissions simply for something to do while taking a break from vandalism patrolling) and I noticed something and was wondering if it is a usual trend. I noticed that all the successful RfAs that I viewed (2016/2017) seemed to have very few opposing (with some exceptions), is that a normal trend or are they mixed (some closer than others)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_year gives you a really good overview of the numbers. The majority of successful RFAs clock in at 90%+. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I have things to do but shall read through that later (next time I'm bored with nothing to do probably haha). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Class review of article

I was wondering if you could possibly take a look at Rats! and determine if it qualifies for any ratings higher than start class? I think it potentially qualifies for C class based on its size/length being comparable to 6615th Ranger Force (example C class article). Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: C-class it is. You might want to expand the reception section with specifics and add sales figures if you can find them. --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have looked for that information and took another look, however, was not able to find sales figures unfortunately I shall see what I can find to add to it. I know that Video game walkthrough is currently awaiting assessment for GA, but I was wondering if it qualifies for C or B class. In my opinion, it is too long and detailed to be a start class. Additionally, size wise it is right smack in the middle practically between the C (6615th Ranger Force) and B (The Papers of James Madison) class examples. Style wise it shares more with The Papers of James Madison (B class) than it does the C class one. If you have any suggestions on how to improve Video game walkthrough I am open to them. I would add an image to it however they are difficult to find (I have yet to find any) and would require the copyright holder to release the screenshot (I have not received any responses) User_talk:TheSandDoctor#Things_to_improve_at_Video_game_walkthrough. Thanks as always for your time and help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Size is not so relevant as the following two things: whether the content you are presenting in an article is comprehensive of the known aspects of that article's topic, and whether your writing is of high quality. Specifically: On the Rats! article, you should take a look at WP:VG/GL if you haven't already. As for its assessment (and video game walkthrough's), try WP:VG/A. I might suggest that Rats! is probably still start-class but could reasonably be C-class. Video game walkthrough should probably be removed from the GAN queue, as it does not meet many of the requirements for GA--it is, at-best, a start class article at present. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Izno regarding Video game walkthrough and will post some suggestions later. --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have commented out the GAN and welcome any suggestions to improve the article. (cc Izno) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Not to get too much into 'improvement' type stuff on this page, but a considered merge of strategy guide and video game walkthrough is probably called for. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: While I understand what you are saying, I disagree and think that merging them would clutter strategy guide as video game walkthrough is larger in size. I created video game walkthrough as a purposeful extension of strategy guide to cover what I felt to be somewhat outside the scope of that article (currently). I think that they would be better off as two separate, related/interlinked articles - sort of like how Grand Theft Auto V and Grand Theft Auto Online are two separate articles that both mention and link the other (they are, in fact, on the same 'disc' and are basically the same game, Grand Theft Auto Online is the multiplayer mode of Grand Theft Auto V). I am currently working on improving video game walkthrough and am doing copy editing on it at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am open to any suggestions on how to improve the article. It has been improved with the help of Mz7 and reassessed as C-class (after improvements). What improvements do you think should be made to reach B class? Thanks again for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hezdor

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hezdor: Hi. Why aren't you answering concerns raised on your talk page? --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I had problems finding this section, I'm just getting it, my english isnt the finest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand the concern EvergreenFir raised? --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hezdor: What's your native language? Maybe I can get an editor to explain the concern in your own language. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My native languague its spanish, i have studied English lately (sorry for the delay, i had not had chance to write you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinged you on RFPP board

Hi,
a look at the activities of the user would be appriciated a lot (the user who requested his own userpage to be protected). I have pinged you on his second request, first one was declined by you. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I saw the ping. Probably a language barrier. They seem to be doing a lot of accurate anti-vandalism work judging by the subsequent blocks. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, he seems to be doing it nicely. But I still dont understand about the "IP block exemption". —usernamekiran(talk) 16:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: Look at the second entry in the user rights log --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thanks. But i couldnt understand "(User could get caught in CheckUser block targeted at another user)" —usernamekiran(talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: The user is on the same IP range as another user we want to hard block. We don't want Prinsipe Ybarro to be blocked just because they're on the same IP range. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks, now i understand. Sometimes, wikipedia terminology seems too vague/concise instead of being precise. I was even involved in an edit war with AIV bot for the same reason lol. I thought he was saying "blocked by Widr 2 years ago", when he was actually trying to say "blocked by Widr for 2 years".
Thanks again for the info —usernamekiran(talk) 17:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hi Neil, we have a bull in a China shop, emptying articles of all their "unsourced" content, plus a nonsensical talk page message to go with it. Probably he is trying to do a WP:POINT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I've pointed them towards WP:PRESERVE but I don't know if that will help. Let's hope so. --NeilN talk to me 21:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, that is the worst case of WP:IDHT I have seen. He came back and repeated himself at Talk:N. C. Kelkar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI archive

Good gawd, I just realized that I responded to a ping from an archived ANI page. Please feel free to delete. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Someone less patient than me did :-) --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I just got bawled out. Sheesh. Had no idea I was posting to an archived page. Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: Moved back to WP:AN if you didn't notice. --NeilN talk to me 21:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as now have that archive page watchlisted (which I will soon remedy) I did notice it. However, as you can see from my comment re that user I really have nothing much further to say. Thanks for your comment on Toddst's page. Honestly, if I'm going to be unfairlly templated, I should unfairly templated for something I do deliberately, not unintentionally. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AE Sanction

It's my first time imposing a sanction at AE; would you mind checking that I've done the necessary things with regard to Ihardlythinkso? I've closed the section at AE, added a notice to the central log and added a notice to the user's talk page; have I missed anything? GoldenRing (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing. I don't think you can set an appeal restriction if they haven't appealed yet. --NeilN talk to me 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't phrase it as an appeal; of course he can appeal against the sanction itself on its merits at any time. I'll add a note to his talk page to that effect. GoldenRing (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Everything else looks okay. --NeilN talk to me 02:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

123.231.107.255

Hello again. I have noticed that 123.231.107.255 has reached a critical number of warnings, but having verified, it does not seem to be blantant vandalism, more YEC POV pushing. Interestingly, cluebot also detected some of that as vandalism. In a case like this, should AIV still be used? I guess that there's a WP:NOTHERE issue, but it seems to be another problem-category. Thanks for your advice, — PaleoNeonate — 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate. AIV is not a good fit for this as their edits are not vandalism (as you've said). Inform them they should use the article talk page to discuss if they are reverted and if they persist in edit warring without discussing then ANI is an option. --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that you mentioned warring, I do see some attempt to restore edits, which may be why cluebot warned afterall. I'll give a last warning about this that is more specific about warring, then if I see more warnings then it'll be my first ANI report. Thanks again, — PaleoNeonate — 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Neil sorry if you are sighing. But we have new users who are creating work in their sand boxes and the work is fine. They are new users. I have put notes on their users pages to say that I'm willing to give help. I really don't understand how new users are meant to learn how to use wikipedia if draft articles are thought to be advertising products. I am obviously misunderstanding procedures but surely I can recrreate a page so it avoids the accusation. What an I meant to do? We have very confused new users who suddenly see their pages disappear as they work on them. Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Can you intercede to correct this and explain to me how we are meant to avoid messing about with new users as they try and learn. Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Given the last interaction between us involved the dubious use of your admin tools to restore blatant spam and a copyright violation I would really like an answer about your digital marketing activities. [13] --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Neil. I have no digital marketing activities - I am supporting students who are on a master course in digital marketing at Loughborough University. I am feeling frustrated as they are being asked to learn just using their sandboxes. A page that describes Facebook in a sandbox is not advertising or promotion. There is no benefit to Facebook. They are students however and they are likely to use words like "best" and "comprehensive" without testing these against the facts or the reference. These are academic masters students and the references they are generally using are reliable and sound. Anything else? Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Yes. Tell your students Wikipedia is not a digital marketing platform. This applies to sandboxes as well. Your activities are not helping to create good content for Wikipedia. Instead, they are encouraging people to think of Wikipedia as an outlet for their future marketing activities. If you want to support Wikipedia then there are plenty of academic topics students could tackle. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: You are misunderstanding I think. These students are not marketing, either digitally or otherwise. They are studying digital marketing. Its an academic subject. It has textbooks etc. The topics covered are academic. Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) The users sandbox starts out with "Meituan is a Chinese O2O (online-to-offline) local life service platform, connecting 240 million consumers and five million local merchants via an array of e-commerce services and products" ... this is an article that should benefit Wikipedia. As it is the new user has not spotted Meituan.com, but they may create a better article as that article says "Meituan.com (Chinese: 美团网; pinyin: Mĕituánwǎng) is a Chinese group buying website for locally found consumer products and retail services." and appears to date from 2014. However the general point is that this user is not advertising or marketing or promoting but learning. Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Thank you for clearing that up. However I had a look at another sandbox you edited. [14] It was full of copyright violations which I've revdeleted. It's kind of hard to understand why you did not see this. --NeilN talk to me 15:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
My focus was not on spotting copyvios but if I had then I would have reverted (as I did recently even though it was in someone's sandbox.) But I do want to avoid you sighing. If another user reverts a sandbox for advertising/promotion then what is the correct procedure if I disagree? If the page can be repaired to avoid this then how do we get the new user moving again without making Neil sigh or the user wandering away confused? Victuallers (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: It has been my observation that drafts created through WP:AFC are less prone to be speedy deleted. You may want to move the sandbox to draftspace and add the appropriate AFC template. Drafts not edited in six months can be speedy deleted so there's a process for getting rid of old cruft. --NeilN talk to me 15:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thx for advice. Two difficulties. First is that we told them about sandboxes (so they would be confused it we tell them there are two methods), the other is that I have a new user who had a draft article reverted. In that case it was because another user though that a draft article like Meituan and a real article like Meituan.com were a "blatant fork". However my real point is how do I avoid you sighing again. If someone has deleted a users sandbox then what is the most efficient way of reverting it? Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I was sighing at your (repeated) assertion that these types of editors can help solve our shortage of editors. As Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi said, we may be short of editors but we are not short of spammers. However I realize you have a different viewpoint and will endeavor to keep my sighs to myself. But realize that if you restore content seen to be advertising then you're probably going to get blowback sometimes. --NeilN talk to me 15:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think we can agree to differ and at least we know you're sighing for a good cause. I understand that spam is a big issue and annoyance - thanks to those who keep it under control. But not sure Masters students are "these types of editors". These are not the spammers you looking for. Surely, If spammers are trying to add links to wiki:sandboxes to gain market share then they are crazy? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: It's the intent to use Wikipedia for advertising. Many spammers have no idea how NOINDEX work on here. --NeilN talk to me 16:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point - They are getting no benefit. Will defending spamboxes vigorously help as the cost in increasing understanding from trained users might be counter productive. Moot point I guess. Victuallers (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I am following this spat with incredulity, and would like to ask @NeilN: how you propose we train up, highly educated, time short users with specialist skills to become productive editors.
  • The first problem is access- they have limited access to us and we only have a sparse number of opportunities to talk with them- are we wrong to accept an offer to participate in an existing Masters level course?
  • In many other courses we deliver- the participants attend because they have been sent by their line manager- rather out of enthusiasm. In many courses, the students online skills are limited even if their academic skills are excellent. When dealing with time-short students, they leave posting their work to within minutes of the deadline- which makes many of our formal procedures too lengthy to be considered. How do we streamline? Explaining draft space to a newbie is an unnecessary complication - how do we simplify?
  • When talking about training, the sound bite, buzzword-- is getting the student to write an article, but that is a constraint imposed on the trainer by our partners/hosts. I am sure you started, as I did by correcting a howler in the sort of cringe-making articles we had in 2004. A far better way- but paradoxically harder to teach. But that is the starting point-if we follow the links from Mainpage they are directed to their sandbox

My sandbox is a feature which gives you a place to practice editing, either to build a draft for later publication in the main encyclopedia, or just to practice formatting with wiki markup syntax. If you have an account, you will see a link in the upper right corner of the screen that says "Sandbox"; this will take you to your sandbox. [[Help:My sandbox}}

On the way they are warned : "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive or libelous content in sandboxes." Further research leads them to this bloated page: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia which at #How to edit displays this nice side box.
Note: You can use the sandbox to experiment with page editing.

.

The circular linking and the blurring between sandboxes in the description really is not acceptable at top level- but how do we change that?

  • Some of our students use English as their first and only language- others English is their second, fourth or fifth- none of our students are fluent in Wiki-ese which is being used above. How do we explain that our use of the word 'lead' different from what they learnt in the journalism course? In the field of Business- important wiki articles are start class- so don't provide model practice. Look at Business model oldid=779514488 for an example.
  • We tell them that the sandbox is a safe place to practise. So how can you as an admin ensure that it is? We as trainers can verbally explain that the text they are producing will make experiences Wikipedians twitchy. What tag do suggest we ask them to place on their sandbox- to alert you to the fact, that they are under instruction, and prove to them the WP:BITE applies to that page- but more so.

As a teacher and trainer I can tell you that you win hearts and minds by encouragement, so I am asking for constructive suggestions on how we can encourage these students to avoid the later pitfalls when the article is copied across to main space. I have spent some time producing paper based teaching materials designed for hands on sessions-User:ClemRutter/training, and particularly Women in Red creating an article - The Digital Marketing students seem to think it is helpful to them all be it in a different learning context. There is nothing there on notability, or on any of the concerns you raise. Before I attempt to add them, could you perhaps knock up a draft on what you think I should say. It is dormant at the moment but I am building up a collection of pages that can be given as teaching notes for newbie trainers- Individual resource sheets again I am open to suggestions. No- desperate for suggestions and feedback.

Should trainers have a toolchest of helpful and encouraging templates we can drop into students sandbox, or better still on their talk pages. What would the top ten most useful ones say? Exodus 7- 12 seems a little over the top. Would it be helpful to non-training admins to have access to a toolbox with these templates and other ideas for dealing with time-short students?ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Why isn't this being used? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Can we continue that discussion on your (or my talkpage) in a few days time. Cheers. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: The most critical thing is to drum the notion of copyrights and close paraphrasing into their heads. It's the first thing they should hear when they sit down, raised constantly during the session, and the last thing they hear when they leave. This preceding may sound harsh, but for many students, this is just an assignment for a mark, to be done as quickly as possible (as you've alluded to above). Copy-paste from a few sites (especially if you're not completely fluent in English) and you're done. The second thing (and unfortunately this might not be as effective with younger generations) is to get them to ask themselves if the style of what they're writing would be acceptable for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not the topic, but the style. This is a good informal self-check to see if you're writing an inappropriate essay, a personal reflection, a how-to guide, or using peacock terms. If they're unfamiliar with Britannica then point them towards a few good online articles (or Wikipedia good articles) so they get a sense of the appropriate writing style. Third, warn them away from using primary sources (and primary sources in disguise like press releases). Primary sources are sometimes acceptable but you need to be an experienced editor to use them properly. Strongly discouraging their use will cut down on articles which are little better than spam and will go a long way to showing the all-important notability. These are a few ideas. Happy to discuss further. --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I am looking at what you have said- and agree that it needs to be said- but timing is important here. Lets see what I can come up with over the weekend- I have a long drive to do and that will give me some thinking time. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B

I don't see you much around political stuff, so I think you're about as uninvolved as it gets. Could you do something about this IP? I think 1-2 day semi-protection of Talk:Mark Dice might be enough, but maybe the IP needs a quick block, too. (they're edit warring at the talk page, using it as a forum, and spamming editor talk pages with edit warring templates). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I've collapsed the discussion and posted on the IP's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Time

Is this Vote X again? Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: I can't tell. Jc3s5h? --NeilN talk to me 12:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The edits seem to take the position that today GMT is the same as UT1. when in fact the scientific community no longer offers a predice definition of GMT. I m inclined to think it is Vote...Jc3s5h (talk)
Given that the IP matches with the British Telecom known IP ranges used by Vote, I'm inclined to agree with you, so I'll go ahead and revert their changes. Mojoworker (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:75.166.196.224

Neil, an IP you blocked for vandalism, User:75.166.196.224, is at it again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

You just closed a complaint because the user didn't violate WP:3RR. I am well aware that the user didn't, but I didn't report him for WP:3RR, but for general edit warring. Your closure is faulty. Either revert it or tell me why you didn't do anything about a user who willfully ignored policy and who will continue to remove the other still unopposed addition for the only reason that there was no discussion.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: You're edit warring as much as they are. And other editors are opposing your other changes on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 14:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not. I have only made ONE reversion; and I hoped it would not be reverted because I educated the user about WP:PGCHANGE; and that his reverts were forbidden by policy. Needless to say, I was reverted. I could have, of course, reverted again, but WP:EDITWAR was exactly what I had in mind then. Burning Pillar (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Burning Pillar: Have any of your changes been met with clear support? Also, "his reverts were forbidden by policy" is quite a dramatic (and incorrect) statement. You'll find that little is "forbidden by policy" here. Nigej's comment here is worth considering carefully. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever, I'll just wait some time, and when my proposal is still unopposed, I'll simply revert again. That's probably the best method at that point.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello User:Burning Pillar. Your idea to revert again in the future might be viewed as gaming the system. It would be a better use of your time to try to persuade others. Admins are fully capable of counting up supports and opposes on talk pages, if that's what it comes to. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Move

As much as I appreciate your ninja editing skills, was the removal of my reference to Yessongs really necessary?

Seriously, that was gone in, like, a minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarkusELP (talk • contribs)

Sorry to look like I'm stalking your talk page, Neil, but I've blocked this account as a VOA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Stalk away. One of the great things about Wikipedia is editors helping each other out without being asked. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

John Francis Templeson

Please see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, speedy!

Appreciate your dealing with the edit warring Chinese IP. He'll be back, since he's an ace IP hopper. I'd just left a message for Krakatoa Katie, and didn't want to fuck up 10 minutes after you gave me pending changed reversal rights! Glad you got there in a hurry. Those personal insults are unacceptable! --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: No problem. Pending changes doesn't factor into the situation. You revert as usual, following the regular policies and guidelines. Pending changes just allows you to approve pending edits that you think shouldn't be reverted. --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried it once, then decided I was too involved (I know you guys are under tremendous scrutiny for that.) That's when I left the message for Katie. All I need is to abuse the first user right I've asked for 10 minutes after I get it. Glad to see the article is semi'd. It's a shame to frustrate other IPs, but this guy won't stop. Enjoy your weekend! --Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well our favorite IP has hopped back to: User:223.71.245.147, one of his favorites, to evade his block. --Drmargi (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 06:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And again, with insults: User:58.117.94.61. I can take being called a toe rag off my bucket list. --Drmargi (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sent you an email

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– 𝕘wendy | ☎  03:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks so much! – 𝕘wendy | ☎  11:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you call me?

Hi.

I've noticed that you pinged me once in revision 780457366 and had mentioned me once before there. However, I hope you'd forgive me if I refrain from reading a wall of text which is most probably a repetition, repetition, and repetition of what is already said before. So:

  • If you want to tell me something, please tell me here. I'll do my best to keep the conversation short and refrain from posting unnecessary replies.
  • If you want me to participate in that discussion, I am sorry, I don't beat the dead horse. You told me "it was not a vandalism", I complied. If you want to villainize me for not complying sooner or not having the same opinion as you in the first place, go ahead. Maybe I deserve it. I don't know.
  • If you want me to defend you, I have already tried. I had a chat with FC and asked why he disobeyed a direct admin's order. He says you never gave him one, he was not aware that you had given me one, and your chat in his talk page didn't have sufficient conviction. It's worse. He claims you are utterly incompetent, and among his reasons, there was one that I couldn't shake: He says a situation was escalated to you, you took charge, but it was ultimately necessary to be escalated to your fellow colleague. By definition, a person whose job needs to be done by his peer is not competent. If you want to conclude the discussion, reach a compromise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. No need to respond to the discussion. Part of my post was discussing your actions so I thought it was only fair to ping you. --NeilN talk to me 14:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. But do not bother. The way to end a discussion with FleetCommand is to give him some tangible criteria. You'd be surprised how effective this is. His current criterion seems: "When an editor writes something that plausibly looks like a lie instead of an honest mistake, and fails to assume responsibility for it, he is not acting in good faith." Codename Lisa (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for keeping the vandalism at bay! Tsuser (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User dispute with SS article

Hi, I'm reaching to you because this user (95.123.53.78) is reverting my edits on the Sharon Stone filmography article. I removed the awards and added her producer credits as well as the type of release some of the films were, as there is an article exclusively about her awards and nominations (and is also mentioned in section of the lead), yet this person keeps undoing the changes with all those ill-mannered responses. I think it's the same user you blocked earlier on the Sharon Stone article. Greetings! 190.249.179.87 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Same ISP but I cannot see any definitive behavioral similarities. --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding policy

Hi Mr. N - I have a question about a policy (or maybe it's just a norm) here that seems kind of vague to me. I will switch to hypothetical references but I have diffs to current events if you would like the real context. Editor A ideologically opposes Editor B. A has B on a watchlist, and appears to have followed him to a couple politically charged articles and reverts some of the things he disagrees with. We would clearly call this WIKIHOUNDING, especially if there's a pattern here. However Editor C also has Editor B on his watchlist, and follows him to the same articles, but supports his viewpoints by reverting Editor A or other editors disagreeing with B. In my mind this seems somewhat troublesome too, but it appears that this is usually characterized as good faith collaboration. Can you help me understand the difference here? Again, if you would like diffs to a current conflict please let me know and I will provide them (preferably by email). Mr Ernie (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Sound as if you're describing a WP:TAGTEAM. Read that over and see if it helps. Difficult to curb for obvious reasons. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It does look like it's difficult to address TAGTEAM editing (also AGF). However, it appears we treat WIKIHOUNDING more seriously than TAGTEAMING, although they're for the most part the same thing, with the notable difference of support vs oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I think it's because wikihounding is easier to spot because good edits are being reverted for no or flimsy reasons by one editor whereas good faith collaboration is something we want to encourage. For example, I have lots of users' talk pages on my watchlist and most of them have a good grasp of policies and guidelines. So when I see a provocative edit summary I might stick my proverbial nose in, look at the dispute, and revert "per whoever". Now, I might not have ever edited the article before and I might look at related edits, reverting if I think it's appropriate. Is that tag teaming or collaboration? Obviously in this situation I think it's the latter. --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IPs

Neil, sorry to be a pain, but I feel I have no where else to turn in regards to this matter. Over the last 3 years, I have had the same person using a wide range of IPs casting personal attacks and in a vile bully way that is causing severe distress. The most recent is at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017, in which an IP is viciously attacking me. I've been called "an elite", "acolyte", owner, and other horrid remarks. Normally I would take this to ANI, but I find it a daunting place. The IP clearly knows me somehow, as they called me by the old name "Wesley Mouse". As an admin, is there anything you could possibly do to put a stop to this IP casting such attacks? Or maybe even explain to them about how Wikipedias works, as they are causing disruption with their argumentative remarks, demands to have a page unprotected, and have even threatened to attack a page once it is unprotected. Whoever the person is, they are showing clear signs of getting a sadistic kick out of bullying others. Thank you in advance. Wes Wolf Talk 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: "The wording is a signature style to one indefinitely blocked user that I know very well..." Who's the indefinitely blocked user? --NeilN talk to me 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It is one of two people that have used a similar style of attack over the last 6 years, and aimed at myself. And with different IPs, which I shouldn't really be too shocked by that discovery. Attacks have been made via various Eurovision talk pages and even on my own talk page. I'm digging up evidence, as this behaviour is now showing strong signs of harassment, hounding, and potentially cyber-bullying. Wes Wolf Talk 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Wolf: I'm going to need account names to see how I can help. If you're uncomfortable with posting names/evidence publicly, you can email me. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As you can see from this IP 213.77.26.160 contributions, they have only just jumped into conversations; and not just any user, but they launched straight at myself 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. That is clearly WP:HOUND, WP:HARASS, and WP:BULLY. And they directly attack me by name, which I am starting to get concerned about. This isn't coincidence, it it malicious and purposely targeting me. Wes Wolf Talk 17:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Tarkattack was one user who held a long grudge against me a while ago. There is also this archived attack from Tony0106, who attacked me between 2011/12. I'm just not sure which one of them are the attacker, if that makes sense. Wes Wolf Talk 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neil, it is getting far out of hand now at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017. The attacks are unbearable and intimidating. I'm actually scared of logging on here now, knowing that I'll only see some horrid attack from another IP. Wes Wolf Talk 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wesley Wolf: I've collapsed a few sections but you're not helping yourself by taunting them. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You might wish to block the IP's talk page access too, as it looks like they won't be doing anything productive with it. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ebyabe: Yes, already done. --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way that you know of, where I can search the entire Wikipedia (talk pages, user talk pages, and their archives) for a specific piece of text? Something that IP wrote at WP:AN which tripped them up on scrutiny, has flagged up a red flag memory in my head of a user who attacked me in a different method, then an IP came along in the same way but tripped up saying they were logged out with the aim to "purposely get away with attacking me" (in their words). I want to get to the bottom of all this, as 6-years of hell and abuse is enough for anyone to have to endure. Wes Wolf Talk 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Have you tried with Advanced search? — PaleoNeonate — 01:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ever so kindly, @PaleoNeonate:. I never knew about that tool before, and with your help there I've managed to find the scrutiny avoiding IP. I know who the user is now that has been targeting me, and yes dating all the way back to 2012. Now what do I do? Wes Wolf Talk 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! — PaleoNeonate — 01:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Wesley Wolf: If you believe you have sufficient evidence, alongside waiting for Neil to respond, you could also file an SPI to establish a record for potential future incidences. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've kept notes of links, names, related-IPs, dates etc just in case. In a way, I am glad of the WP:AN that was lodged against myself, as the IP came out with some stuff that triggered personal memories - if that makes sense - of similar attacks. The fact the IP also stated they have an account but was commenting in IP-mode to avoid their account being blocked, is what triggered the memories. I understand that Neil has blocked the IP due to WP:SCRUTINY. But that slip up by the IP and the help from PN above has helped immensely to pinpoint the user and the back-trail of attacks. But it could also be grasping at straws, which is why I was thinking of a second set of eyes before I considered SPI. Wes Wolf Talk 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NotSeenHere conduct on the Maxime Bernier WP page

Hello, I have noticed that @NotSeenHere: seems to be engaging in disruptive behaviour in the Maxime Bernier article. This user's talk page is full of people asking him/her to stop it. Specifically, this user seems to be trying to interpret articles in POV ways, rather than simply using exactly what they said. Please provide assistance. @Peter Gulutzan: recommended that I contact you for assistance. Bell1985 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bell1985: Let me know if they continue reverting without discussing. I've already engaged them here. --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. The thing is, @NotSeenHere: asked me to move the NATO stuff to a different section, which is a reasonable request. So, I moved it to foreign policy. Now, this user is saying that NATO is not part of foreign policy. I'm not sure what to make of this. I've brought it up on the article talk page, but this user is not responding. Bell1985 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bell1985: Yes, I saw that. Any more "not responding" will probably result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And now blocked for 72 hours. --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, FYI Bell1985 has been blocked as a sock puppet of a disruptive editor. (This is not meant to be any comment on NotSeenHere's editing, whose edits I have not examined at all.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Grrreaaaat. A sockpuppet vs. an editor who won't communicate. --NeilN talk to me 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My old discussion with Mz7

Hi,
I have been following this guy since a few days, he sure knows about gaming the system. I would advise to issue proper notices, to avoid talking, and to perform appropriate sanctions when/where possible. But again, you are way more experienced than I am, but still I felt i should drop in lol. I hope you dont mind about my advice. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Lots of problematic edits including at least one copyvio and a silly user page to boot. I foresee a trip to ANI in the future if they don't shape up. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
lol, the user has been to an ANI before. I am not sure what Glaskugel crystal ball is doing here, or what it represents. Would you please elaborate? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure PaleoNeonate was commenting on my amazing ability to see into the future. --NeilN talk to me 23:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
lmao!
I didnt realise it was placed by PaleoNeonate, i thought it was you (didnt see at page history). You made my day Paleo (actually its almost 5:30am here, and I am about to sleep). See you guys around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Good nightday — PaleoNeonate — 23:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neil, PaleoNeonate. There is poll going on about blocking this user indefinitely, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Raevhuld. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reign of the Fallen AFD

It seems both of us created a deletion debate for this article. Could you please delete one of them? I doubt we need two of them that say basically the same thing. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 01:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Advice

I'm contacting you because you're an administrator and a name I see regularly. I have been involved with two content disputes on Alternative for Germany, and a regular user (with whom you are regularly in contact) who has been on the losing side of both has threatened on my talk page that they will take me and several other involved users to ANI. The disputes were over the contents of a userbox, and the definition of the term German nationalism. In response to the second dispute, the user significantly altered the scope of the German nationalism article in the lede, which caused them to make the threats on my talk page. This user, and one other, has repeatedly made WP:BADFAITH accusations at those who have disagreed with them on the talk page, and I imagine that will be the basis of any ANI report. It simply cannot be that all of the people who have joined the discussion via RFCs are tendentious and bad faith editors (this user is currently a minority of one on the talk page).

Don't have many diffs for you at the moment (very busy), but if you have time please read this, this, and this. I recognise that my behaviour in the earlier part of this dispute wasn't very edifying, but I hope it shows that I have changed the way I engage with people on talks. The user in question appears either to not have understood our arguments, or has refused to engage with them [15][16].

I won't be able to defend myself, given my other commitments, until 13th June, if there is an ANI report. Is there anyway I can avoid being reported before 13th? If you think there might be a basis for an ANI complaint, I will agree not to make further changes until 13th June, when I will be able to defend myself. I hope you will be able to help. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I also request a self-ban? I don't want to be tempted to defend myself. I have offered to remove myself from both pages on the user's talk page if he leaves it until I am available. I think it would be unfair to proceed given that I have let him know I won't be able to give myself a fair hearing. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood: Are you sure you want to be blocked? I don't know if that will sway Jytdog into delaying an ANI report. Perhaps you can work out some voluntary editing restrictions? --NeilN talk to me 05:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Triple Talaq in India

Hi Neil, Triple Talaq in India needs your attention. Some heavy edit-warring by IP hoppers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Semied one week. --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you, and questions - Especially regarding page: Tareq Salahi

Hi, thanks for your continued involvement and help with this page.

I should be clear that I have no connection at all to the subject, only a desire for genuine encyclopedic content. I have tended to make corrections that I've seen as 'obvious' on any wikipedia page I've seen, and only upon stumbling onto the Salahi page have I become more involved due to the 'puffery' of it. Of course, I bow down to your superior knowledge of wikipedia style etc, and will respect and follow any decisions or advice you have for me. Thanks again for your help. Samshltn (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samshltn: I've dealt with the IP but please read WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPSTYLE. Some of your edits go overboard highlighting negative information. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks for the honest feedback. I will take that on board. Thanks for the two articles to study as well. I will study those now. Thanks for all your help today, both with this specific article/IP and with my Wikipedia education. Samshltn (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ilikerabbits! - 123.231.124.98

[17] Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And I get to tend the rabbits!

Now at Talk:Birth_control#Catholic_Church_on_Contraception but has finally opened a discussion. Maybe slow learning but promising? — PaleoNeonate — 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: It's a miracle! Someone alert the Congregation for the Causes of Saints! --NeilN talk to me 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Although I'll let you do it, I must avoid holy water at all costs, lest I instantly vaporize. — PaleoNeonate — 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I am really freaked out by Cdg/etc doing that.

But for something that may be easier, I noticed Grand'mere Eugene undid something by this person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Democrat2016) but when I checked what they have done it looks like just repeated vandalism, they are inserting the names Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton into random articles along with changing sentences and adding weird capitalization. Is there a best place to report something like that to? Morty C-137 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: I gave them a final warning. If they continue, please report to WP:AIV. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting RevDel for edit summary

Could you please suppress the edit summary in this edit. I sent email to Stephen about this few hours ago, but they don't seem to be active right now. Politrukki (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Done. --NeilN talk to me 17:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image copyrights?

Hi Neil, hope things are well for you this week! Do you know anything about image copyright rules? Are the non-free images here being used under legitimate free-use rationale? I don't have too much experience in this world, but my gut tells me that the envelope is being pushed too far. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb. They've been deleted by another admin. WP:NFCCP #8 is what needs to be considered: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Because enforcement of that criteria seems completely arbitrary to me(*) I usually look at other similar articles to guide me. For example, List of Friday the 13th characters or List of The Librarian characters have no images. (*)I have never gotten a good explanation of how a CD cover or a book jacket cover "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

National liberalism

You asked me if did anyone else break WP:3RR, I provied the information. So what know? I'm pretty upset about this situation. Because I was the only who was sanctioned and then called a troll. A response in my talk page would be nice. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Consecutive edits count as one revert. The initial addition of new material is not a revert. --NeilN talk to me 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What? They didn't add any new content! [18][19][20][21] E.M.Gregory is not adding any new material, is reverting my edits. Here [22] the only difference that Checco did is re-organize the content, then is a revert of my edit. He/she didn't add anything new. [23][24][25] all are reverts of my edits. "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring" WP:WAR. I'm losing my mind here. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Show me four reverts within a 24 hour period by one editor. Not reverts that were self-reverted, not additions of new material, not consecutive edits that you are incorrectly counting as multiple reverts. As an example, here are six of yours: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Since I start the AfD I been called inept, vandal and troll and they questioned my good faith, and I'm the only one who is under scrutiny. This is very humiliating. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You were blocked because you reverted six times and did not self-revert when given the chance. I've told you this. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm going to focus in the current events. Trying to maintain the article in good shape through discussion. Thank you for take the time to answer me. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Watch this one today?

Preakness Stakes is today and we have another of those "change data in weird ways" vandals, possibly the same guy who was causing all the trouble on the horse racing articles this past year under several sock accounts -- this one kind of looks like a sleeper. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race agin

Hi, Neil. I hate to be asking directly, but there's evidently a backup preventing timely attention at both Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Various seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#141.126.187.36, and the edit-warring anon 141.126.187.36 is running rampant. He started up again almost immediately after the page protection you put in place April 20 ended. I know how busy admins are, and how many demands there are on your time. Given this anon IPs flagrant defiance of the page protection you had installed, I did think it was OK to let you know. Please forgive me if I'm mistaken and jumping protocol. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Oshwah got them I think. Haven't been around much in the past week - trying to get some projects done before vacation. --NeilN talk to me 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrae - The list of pages you requested protection on were all semi protected (with the exception of about 2 or 3 of them - either no recent activity or low disruption). Keep an eye out, and report any continued disruption to WP:AIV and we'll take care of them :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about user

NeilN, I have a concern about a user. AnneMorgan88, whom you blocked in April, has created another article for Northern Illinois, but created it under NIU Huskies wrestling, which is against consensus. After I saw this creation, I went to see if she had created any other articles for Northern Illinois at which she had not, but I did find this message. She is "refus[ing] to participate" in the consensus and is convinced that she is in the right. I'm afraid as she keeps going, she'll keep creating articles as "NIU Huskies xx" instead of "Northern Illinois Huskies xx", etc., leaving a mess for others to clean up. What do we do? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not a big deal. When/if Wikipedia comes to its "consensual" senses (and starts using the correct term and article titles), the (correct) "NIU Huskies" versions of the pages will already be there when/if needed. You're welcome. Also, stop stalking me. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: If AnneMorgan88 creates an article having a title against consensus once every two or three months just shake your head and move it (you can check for them here). If it happens more frequently or disruption ensues then we're looking at another block. --NeilN talk to me 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate it, Neil! Let's hope I just have to shake my head and move on. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody's sock

Hi NeilN, per this, SkepticSalmon has been blocked multiple times with different accounts - is this enough to block them (their edits so far have been pretty disruptive as well) or should I file a SPI without knowing any of the other account names? It is of course possible that they are just trolling, in which case WP:NOTHERE. --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Blocked per WP:EVADE. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokey2022. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hyperion

My apologies, I didn't know that Hyperion belonged to you. Next time I will ask you before I correct a glaring mistake in an article in Wikipedia.--217.248.62.195 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't belong to me. I agreed with the problem you pointed out and removed someone's personal analysis. --NeilN talk to me 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

24.50.204.243

You blocked this user a few weeks ago. Seems to be at it again. Any input is appreciated.–Totie (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Totie: Blocked again. --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This one is probably another IP address of them.–Totie (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) NeilN is offline for the moment, so I gave this one a month's vacation. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Custom did you know that you rock award

Custom you rock award

The: did you know that you rock custom award.
For all your support and patience.
— PaleoNeonate — 03:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an excellent, wonderful, glorious etc award that you've created PaleoNeonate! NeilN definitely deserves it. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User User_talk:Prototypehumanoid

Since you already warned User_talk:Prototypehumanoid wrt his edits on Calculus, I want to point you to the continuation (and next) of this shortly interrupted behaviour. I put a similar note on user_talk:meters. Purgy (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: Gave them a final warning (I cannot block myself because I reverted one of their edits). --NeilN talk to me 04:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am experiencing something similar with the article Zaira Wasim#Controversies from the user (e.g. 1 and 2). Despite my calls to a conversation on the article's talk page, the user continues reverting my edits without explaining (and edit summary in most cases) blaming me instead. I have not experienced this situation before, but am trying my best to avoid a editwar. I was wondering if I could ask for your guidance - even if that means pointing out something I may be doing wrong? -MayureshK 20:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
MayureshK, let's see if the compromise you wrote sticks. If it doesn't, let me know. --NeilN talk to me 04:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Shahrizal shahanshah

In regards to my 5 May concerns,[32] this editor has returned to making unsourced articles using a sockpuppet.[33] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I've blocked Shahrizal shahanshah indef as they continued on their merry way without acknowledging any concerns. Adamzariman last edited in January. I'm not sure enough they're a sock to block. --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy Deletion of my article

Hi admin!

I had contributed an article on a company named EFC Ltd in Pune, India, that was tagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. I understand that the article was deleted as it did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. I would like to apply to you for reinstating the article for the following reason:

Pune is an important city in India, with a large number of startups and large companies, requiring office space. EFC is the largest serviced office offering entity, larger even than Regus, in Pune. EFC is also expanding in other cities, including Mumbai.

I would appreciate if you would take the time to help me understand how I can be a better contributor.

Mnrahul (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mnrahul. Did you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFC Ltd? --NeilN talk to me 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi admin! yes, I did read the archived discussion. I would like to know what I can do next. Mnrahul (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

please semi-protect ..

Hi NeilN: would you please semi-protect the article Madhesi people? You may remember that you fully protected this page in April. During the ensuing discussion on the talk page it was agreed to reference publications by scientists, mostly anthropologists. But in the last couple of days, these edits have repeatedly been reverted by anonymous users. Thank you. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

AIV vandal

Quick work on the AIV vandalism. I posted something at WP:ANI before seeing that you'd taken action - feel free to comment. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: I took action because of your ANI comment. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mozhan Marno

Please clean up my addition to Mozhan Marno. 2008 film "Traitor" playing role of Layla. Thank you. Davmer64 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc (talk · contribs)

Saw your warning on my talk page, just wanted to say that Mlpearc (talk · contribs) is repeatedly undoing my edits on Eddie Van Halen without giving me any justifiable reason for doing so. I have given him my reasons for adding the important information that I added but he seems to be disinterested in this. Please resolve this problem as soon as possible. Thank You. [1] Lord NnNn (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this in one place (WP:ANI), please. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Van_Halen&action=history

Jordan

Any updates on Jordan? --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss and Maile66: See here. I've been emailing with one Arbcom member but I have a feeling they're going to dump it into the community's lap. Let me sum up what I've communicated so far:
  • Arbcom has exacerbated this issue as they've taken away admin discretion in this area.
  • This was the most recent discussion. Nothing was done and the utterly meaningless "where that is not feasible" clause was kept. Since admins have no discretion in this area (can't semi-protect, can't decline, can't warn, can't block instead of ECPing) we are looking for guidance for what Arbcom considers "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"
  • Arbcom could make this whole thing go away by simply changing "feasible" to "optimal". "Reasonably construed" would be less important to define as admins can use their discretion to implement other solutions.
  • I once again asked if Arbcom wanted to lead the "reasonably construed" discussion and gave these examples: Egypt, Jordan, Foreign policy of the United States, a BLP of an author who, along with other works, wrote a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict ten years ago.
--NeilN talk to me 15:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not knowledgeable with all these Wiki processes, so I am not sure what to say. I view the protection seriously problematic and would do anything to remove it. Any way I could offer help? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: The problem is Arbcom has tied our hands. If Jordan can be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict then admins cannot decline a ECP request. An admin can do nothing (which is what I do when I feel ECP is - putting it politely - overkill) but another admin will likely come by and deal with the open request. Your only options are to argue that Jordan cannot be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict but that depends on the protecting admin's interpretation of "reasonably construed" agreeing with yours or you raising the matter at WP:AE. That's why we're looking at Arbcom to provide more guidance on the term. For the record, I'm probably more annoyed at admins being forced to used a sledgehammer in this area than you are. Arbcom should give admins the necessary tools to mitigate disruption; they shouldn't also dictate how disruption must be mitigated. --NeilN talk to me 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not meaning to disrespect anyone, but the enforcing admin does not seem to be interested at all in solving the problem. He says he followed guidelines and would not revert as he does not want to appear weak. He was not impartial, and went as far as to challenge my argument, that Jordan cannot be broadly related to the conflict.
So basically now we are waiting for Arbcom? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss and Maile66: I'm working on a clarification request. Meanwhile, more ARBPIA2 stuff here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles.23General_1RR_restriction --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you initiated the request yet?Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be persistent but are there any updates? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Zidansa

Why'd they deleted H's Next Top Model everytime i create that page. Whats wrong? I have reference anyway:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidansa (talk • contribs) 16:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zidansa: Someone's two-follower private Instagram account is not a reference. We're not here to detail your personal school activities. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockmaster and his puppets

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jan_Papież

Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_38&oldid=1136159411"